Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if some employers require direct 
> deposit in banks. Although perhaps they'll make exceptions for 
> exceptional employees who can give a good reason not to do that (maybe 
> the law requires them to handle them - not sure).

For people who don't have that sort of thing, there are products like ATM 
cards that the employer can "load" after a day of work, for example. People 
like migrant workers tend not to keep bank accounts in any one particular bank.

I suspect the company, if pressed, would pay you once in cash and tell you 
not to come back. Just not worth the hassle.

If you're hiring people to work for you today, Thursday, next Monday, and 
then you're done with them, paying them in cash or check makes a whole lot 
more sense than setting up direct deposit that takes the banks 2 weeks to 
organize anyway.

> People who didn't have bank accounts could go banks 
> and get them cashed - although today that tends to raise eyebrows in 
> itself!

Ehn. Depends where you are, really.

>     I think that's what Darren meant - freedom not to have a bank and 
> perhaps he was equating checks with cash. It's almost the same, really. 
> Instead of getting paid by the company, you'll get your salary from the 
> bank.

Right. The point was getting paid in a way that the government didn't 
necessarily know where you are or where you're spending your money.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message